Karnataka High Court
Maruthi Power-Gen(India) ... vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 25 March, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.11894/2021 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
MARUTHI POWER-GEN(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956,
NO.22/4, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. K.SHYAMA RAJU
S/O LATE K. RAMA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI KIRAN J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CAUVERI BHAVAN
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. M/S PASCHIM HYDRO ENERGY PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.23/8
1ST FLOOR, CHRISTHA KRUPA
1ST CROSS, CSI COMPOUND
LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR-TECHNICAL
MR B.R.VASANTHA KUMAR
3. M/S. NAGARJUNA HYDRO ENERGY PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
2
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.23/8, 1ST FLOOR
CHRISTHA KRUPA, 1ST CROSS, CSI COMPOUND
LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
OPERATIONS AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
MR.SOMESWARA PRASAD K.M.,
4. M/S. MYSORE MERCANTILE CORPORATION LTD.,
201 AND 202, 2ND FLOOR, SHRESHTA BUMI
NO.87, K.R.ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU-560 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR.RAKESH SHETTY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. SRIRANGA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. AJAY J.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & 3;
SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DECLARING THAT THE
RESPONDENTS IMPOSING CONDITION NO.S 1, 4 AND 5 IN THE
REVISED PROVISIONAL INTERCONNECTION APPROVAL DATED
30.06.2021 BEARING NO. CEE(P &C)/SEE(PLG)/EE(PSS)/KCO-
94/30542/F-8891/10/21-22 IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY ILLEGAL
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR 'DICTATING ORDERS' THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
This petition takes an exception to the impugned
revised Provisional Interconnection Approval (for short 'the
PIA') at Annexure-A dated 30.06.2021 issued in favour of
the petitioner by the 1st respondent - KPTCL.
2. Initially, the grievance of the petitioner was not in
respect of the entire PIA dated 30.06.2021, but only in
relation to conditions No.1, 4 and 5 of the PIA;
subsequently, petitioner has restricted its challenge only to
condition No.1 of the PIA; in this context, it is relevant to
state that the petitioner has filed a Memo restricting its
claim / challenge only to condition No.1 and giving up its
claim / challenge to condition Nos.4 and 5.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the KPTCL as well as
the learned Senior counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and
learned counsel for respondent No.4 jointly submitted that
the respondents do not have any objection for the petitioner
to give up its claim / challenge in respect of condition Nos.4
and 5 of the PIA and to restrict its claim / challenge only to
condition No.1.
4. The memo filed on behalf of the petitioner /
joint submissions by both sides are placed on record and
accordingly, I have heard the parties only in relation to
impugned condition No.1 of the PIA dated 30.06.2021.
5. Briefly stated, the various contentions urged in
the petition are as follows:-
a) The petitioner is an independent power producer, in
whose favour, the State Government, vide order dated
19.10.2010 allotted a Hydro project, pursuant to which,
the KPTCL issued a regular re-revised Evacuation
Scheme dated 22.06.2017 for the proposed 24 MW
Hongadahalla Mini Hydel Scheme in Sakaleshpura
Taluk, Hassan District, subject to various conditions. As
per the aforesaid scheme, petitioner was granted one
year's time i.e., time up to 21.06.2018 to carryout the
Evacuation Scheme work.
b) It is contended that subsequently, vide Communication
dated 20.07.2018, the KPTCL granted extension of time
up to 21.12.2019 in favour of the petitioner; accordingly,
a Meeting dated 01.02.2019 was called by KPTCL in the
presence of other independent power producers viz.,
respondents 2 to 4, wherein it was resolved that the
petitioner would complete the Evacuation Scheme work
with the cooperation of others at the earliest.
c) Petitioner contends that thereafter it took necessary
steps to complete the work and sought for
interconnection approval from KPTCL. By order dated
27.04.2019, the KPTCL granted PIA in favour of the
petitioner, subject to certain conditions and based on
CEIG approval letter dated 16.04.2019 to take LILO
from the existing 66 KV Sakaleshpura MHS of PHEPL
(respondent No.2). Under the said order, at the request
of the petitioner, further extension was granted on
27.04.2019 for a period of three months which was
extended once again for a further period of three months
on 07.06.2019 and for an additional further period up to
30.09.2019 vide communication dated 11.07.2019.
d) Meanwhile, the respondents 2 to 4 approached this
Court ventilating their grievances in W.P.No.21126/2019
which was disposed of on 08.05.2019 directing the
KERC to consider the rival claims and pass appropriate
orders. Accordingly, vide order dated 30.05.2019
passed in O.P.No.28/2019, the KERC directed that the
PIA dated 27.04.2019 (supra), shall be construed as
having been limited to injection of 4 MW power from the
petitioner herein to the LILO line of PHEPL; in addition
thereto, certain other directions were also issued by the
KERC. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 2 to 4
approached this Court in W.P.No.23179/2019, which
was rejected vide order dated 06.06.2019.
e) On 07.06.2019, the KPTCL issued a revised PIA in
terms of the aforesaid orders passed by the KERC
dated 30.05.2019. Thereafter, at the instance of the
petitioner, the revised PIA was extended for a further
period up to 30.09.2019 vide letter dated 11.07.2019.
So also, at the request of the petitioner, the KPTCL
issued letters dated 13.08.2019 and 06.11.2019
extending the revised PIA for 4 MW up to 31.12.2019
and 30.06.2020 respectively. Subsequently, as
requested by the petitioner, vide letter dated
02.07.2020, the revised PIA was further extended up to
30.06.2021. It is contended that due to various reasons
including the Covid-19 pandemic and the lock down on
account of the same, the petitioner could not complete
the Evacuation work within time and that accordingly,
the time period for the PIA was required to be extended.
f) Petitioner submits that since he could not complete the
work, petitioner submitted a representation dated
05.05.2021 requesting further extension of time up to
30.06.2022 and also for directions to the KPTCL officers
to permit LILO to 2nd 66 KVA circuit of IPCL -
Sakaleshpura line. On 29.05.2021, one more
representation was submitted by the petitioner.
Meanwhile, respondents 2 to 4 preferred
W.P.No.9821/2021 before this Court which was
disposed of on 07.06.2021 directing the KPTCL to
consider the representation of the petitioner as well as
respondents 2 to 4 and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law on or before 30.06.2021. Pursuant
thereto, petitioner gave a representation dated
11.06.2021 as well as an Affidavit dated 29.06.2021 to
the KPTCL. As directed by this Court in
W.P.No.9821/2021 referred to supra, the KPTCL
proceeded to issue the impugned order dated
30.06.2021, in which, condition No.1 has been assailed
by the petitioner as stated supra.
6. The 1st respondent - KPTCL has filed
statement of objections inter alia contending that in view of
the availability of equally efficacious and alternative
remedies under the Electricity Act, 2003, the present
petition was not maintainable and liable to be rejected. It is
contended that on 27.04.2019, PIA was granted in favour of
the petitioner which was challenged by respondents 2 to 4
in W.P.Nos.21126-28/2019 which was disposed of by this
Court vide order dated 08.05.2019 directing the parties to
approach the KERC. Pursuant to the said order passed by
this Court, the respondents 2 to 4 approached the KERC in
O.P.No.28/2019 which was disposed of by issuing certain
directions. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 2 to 4
approached this Court in W.P.Nos.23179-180/2019 which
was rejected by this Court on 06.06.2019 by issuing certain
clarifications and also directing the KPTCL to re-examine
the terms and conditions of the PIA in accordance with law.
Pursuant to the same, the KPTCL issued a revised PIA
restricting the total injection of the petitioner to 4 MW for a
period up to 26.07.2019.
6.1. It is contended that at the request / instance of
the petitioner, the aforesaid revised PIA dated 07.06.2019
was subsequently extended on 11.07.2019 for a period up
to 30.09.2019 and thereafter on 13.08.2019 for a period up
to 31.12.2019 and subsequently, on 06.11.2019 for a
period up to 30.06.2020. Subsequent thereto, at the
request / instance of the petitioner, the revised PIA was
once again extended on 02.07.2020 for a period up to
30.06.2021.
6.2. Meanwhile, respondents 2 to 4 preferred
W.P.No.9128/2021 before this Court assailing the aforesaid
extension granted in favour of the petitioner. By final order
dated 07.06.2021, this Court disposed of the said petition
directing the KPTCL to consider the representations of the
petitioner as well as respondents 2 to 4 and pass
appropriate orders on or before 30.06.2021. Accordingly,
the KPTCL has proceeded to pass the impugned revised
PIA dated 30.06.2021 extending time in favour of the
petitioner for the period up to 30.06.2022, thereby
permitting the petitioner to evacuate 4 MW to Circuit - 1
(exclusive line used for evacuation by IPCL), subject to
certain terms and conditions, amongst which, condition
No.1 is assailed in the present petition.
6.3. The KPTCL, in addition to denying the various
contentions / claims urged by the petitioner has stated that
the LILO arrangement to the petitioner through the LILO of
PHEPL (respondent No.2) was on a temporary basis only
and the petitioner having delayed completion of work in
terms of the Evacuation Scheme has been directed to
disconnect its existing LILO line of Circuit - 2 of LILO of
PHEPL and connect to Circuit - 1 which is the exclusive
line used by IPCL of 66 KV IPCL - Sakaleshpura line.
6.4. At paragraph-11(a) of its statement of
objections, the KPTCL has opposed the challenge / claim
of the petitioner in respect of condition No.1. In this context,
the KPTCL has stated in its representation dated
11.06.2021 that the petitioner itself sought for permission to
connect to LILO of Circuit-1 which is the exclusive line used
by IPCL of 66 KV IPCL - Sakaleshpura line, which was
examined and permitted by the KPTCL, since the same
was in conformity with the re-revised Evacuation Scheme
dated 22.06.2017. It is contended that for the purpose of
allowing the petitioner to connect to the aforesaid 1st Circuit
exclusive line of IPCL, the existing LILO connectivity of the
petitioner to the LILO of PHEPL in Circuit - 2 has to be
disconnected. It is also contended that the petitioner cannot
be allowed to connect to both Circuit -1 and Circuit -2 since
the same will lead to tapping of the circuits resulting in
difficulties in identifying the exact fault location in the lines,
delay in restoration and fault at any point of the line causes
problems to all parties who are connected to the line. It is
therefore contended that the KPTCL was fully justified in
imposing the impugned condition No.1 in the revised PIA
dated 30.06.2001, which was issued by taking into account
and considering the representations of the petitioner as well
as respondents 2 to 4 and that the same does not suffer
from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this
Court in the present petition.
6.5. At paragraphs 14 to 26 of its statement of
objections, the KPTCL has denied the various contentions
urged by the petitioner and has stated that connection to
both Circuit-1 and Circuit-2 is technically unfeasible and
accordingly, the KPTCL has sought for dismissal of the
petition.
7. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed their
statement of objections disputing and denying the various
allegations and claims put forth in the petition. It is
contended that the petitioner has not approached this Court
with clean hands and is not entitled to any relief as sought
for by it before this Court. It is also contended that the
conditions in the impugned PIA is purely a technical matter
which is beyond the scope of judicial review in the present
petition, particularly when neither valid nor sufficient
grounds have been made out by the petitioner in support of
its claim.
7.1 The respondents 2 and 3 have also put forth
various other contentions as to how the petitioner who has
continuously delayed the work under the re-revised
evacuation scheme dated 22.06.2017 and cannot assert
that he has better rights than the respondents 2 to 4 who
have invested huge amounts and have been using the line
for several years. After narrating the facts in relation to the
earlier round of litigations and referring to the documents
and other material on record, respondents 2 and 4 have
contended that the petitioner is guilty of misrepresentation
not only to this Court but also to the KPTCL. It is contended
that the repeated extensions granted in favour of the
petitioner has resulted in irreparable injury and hardship to
the respondents 2 to 4 including tripping of the line and
accordingly, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in
W.P.No.9821/2021 dated 07.06.2021, the respondents 2 to
4 have submitted representations which have been
considered by the KPTCL which has taken into account all
technical and non technical aspects in relation to the PIA
and has imposed proper and legal conditions which cannot
be found fault with by the petitioner.
7.2. The respondents 2 and 3 have also urged
several other contentions and have specifically denied and
disputed the various allegations and claims made by the
petitioner and have sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Similarly, the 4th respondent has also filed its
statement of objections putting forth identical contentions
as that of respondents 2 and 3 and having disputed and
denied the various allegations and claims put forth by the
petitioner, the 4th respondent has also sought for dismissal
of the petition.
9. I have heard Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Sri.S.Sriranga, learned Senior counsel for the KPTCL,
Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel appearing
for respondents 2 and 3 as well as Sri.Aditya Narayan,
learned counsel for respondent No.4.
10. As stated supra, though initially the petitioner
had challenged conditions No.1, 4 and 5 in the revised PIA
dated 30.06.2021, during the course of hearing, it was
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was
restricting its claim / challenge only to condition No.1 and
had given up its claim in relation to condition Nos.4 and 5; a
memo in this regard dated 24.03.2022 was also filed by the
petitioner. Accordingly, the only question that arises for
consideration in the present petition is with regard to the
legality and validity of condition No.1 in the revised PIA
dated 30.06.2021.
11. In addition to reiterating the various
contentions urged in the petition and referring to the
material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
submitted that condition No.1 was not the subject matter of
the proceedings before the KPTCL which was restricted
only to extension of time sought for by the petitioner. It was
submitted that the KPTCL was entitled to only impose fair
and reasonable conditions which were not prejudicial to any
of the parties and under these circumstances, condition
No.1 would prevent the petitioner from completing the
remaining work within the extended period as per the
revised PIA dated 30.06.2021 which is to expire on
30.06.2022. It was also submitted that condition No.1 was
not part and parcel of either the re-revised Evacuation
scheme dated 22.06.2017 or the order extending the same
nor was condition No.1 imposed in the original PIA dated
27.04.2019 nor the subsequent orders extending it and that
the impugned condition which was imposed for the first
time under the revised PIA was illegal, irrational, arbitrary,
unjust, unreasonable and unfair and contrary to the other
conditions contained in the PIA.
Learned Senior counsel submits that in its
representations, petitioner had been requesting for
additional LILO in Circuit No.1 of IPCL in addition to the
existing LILO to the LILO of PHEPL as provided in the
earlier PIAs and revised PIAs and the KPTCL has not
considered the requests made by the petitioner resulting in
great hardship and prejudice to the petitioner. It is also
submitted that if condition No.1 was not imposed, no
prejudice would be caused to the respondents 2 to 4. It is
therefore submitted that the impugned condition No.1 in the
revised PIA dated 30.06.2021 deserves to be quashed.
12. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for KPTCL
as well as learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos. 2
and 3 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.4
submitted that despite repeated extension of time granted
at the instance of the petitioner from 2017 onwards, the
petitioner was not diligent enough to complete the
Evacuation Scheme work by taking sufficient steps in this
regard. It was submitted that the petitioner was guilty of
suppression of material facts and abuse of process of court
/ law and having not come to the Court with clean hands,
the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the present
petition. It was also submitted that condition No.1 imposed
in the revised PIA dated 30.06.2021 was based on
technical opinion / expertise, the legality or validity of which
cannot be the subject matter of judicial review before this
Court. In the original PIA dated 27.04.2019, the petitioner
was granted approval to the LILO of PHEPL subject to
various conditions including ensuring that no prejudice,
hardship or loss would be caused to respondents 2 to 4
who were all connected to Circuit No.2. The repeated
extension of time granted in favour of the petitioner and the
long and inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in
completing the evacuation work, had resulted in grave
hardship and injury to the respondents 2 to 4 who had not
only submitted several representations to the KPTCL but
also approached this Court, which directed the KPTCL to
address the grievances of the respondents 2 to 4 before
passing any orders as regards the PIA or its extension in
favour of the petitioner. It was further submitted that in its
representations dated 29.05.2021 and 11.06.2021,
petitioner had sought for a LILO only to Circuit-1 of the 66
KVA IPCL - Sakaleshpura line and not by way of an
additional LILO; under these circumstances, the KPTCL
having granted a LILO in favour of the petitioner to Circuit-1
of the 66 KVA IPCL - Sakaleshpura line, the KPTCL was
fully justified in imposing impugned condition No.1, thereby
directing the petitioner to disconnect the existing LILO by
which the petitioner had connected to the LILO of PHEPL.
12.1 It was therefore submitted that having regard
to the prejudice and hardship is caused to the respondents
2 and 4 as urged by them before the KPTCL as well as
before this Court, the KPTCL was fully justified in taking
into account the hardship to be caused to the petitioner as
well as the respondents 2 to 4 and issuing the PIA dated
30.06.2021 granting extension of time in favour of the
petitioner up to 30.06.2022 and by imposing various
conditions including the impugned condition No.1 which is
perfectly legal, valid, proper, just, fair, rational and
reasonable and the same does not warrant interference by
this Court in the present petition.
13. I have given my anxious consideration to the
rival submissions and perused the material on record.
14. The material on record discloses that on
22.06.2017, the KPTCL approved regular re-revised
evacuation scheme in favour of the petitioner. The approval
which was valid for a period of 12 months was extended at
the request of the petitioner up to 21.12.2019 vide
communication dated 20.07.2018.
15. Meanwhile, petitioner requested provisional
interconnection approval for 24 MW for its Mini Hydel
scheme. As per the said request, the provisional
interconnection approval had to be granted in favour of the
petitioner by taking a LILO through the existing LILOs of the
respondents 2 to 4. Respondents 2 to 4 objected to the
same on the ground that the same would disrupt and
hamper the transmission of electricity from their power
plants. On 16.04.2019, the State Government (Electrical
Inspectorate) granted approval for PIA in favour of the
petitioner by according LILO from the existing LILO of
PHEPL (respondent No.2). In pursuance of the same, the
KPTCL issued a communication dated 27.04.2019 in favour
of the petitioner granting approval of PIA for 24 MW Mini
Hydel scheme by taking a LILO through the existing LILO
of PHEPL.
16. In this context, it is relevant to state that the
KPTCL specifically noticed that the petitioner had not
completed the evacuation scheme work and granted PIA
based on the request of the petitioner subject to the
condition that if any objections / legal issues / complications
arose from anybody, the PIA shall stand withdrawn without
any notice. The said PIA dated 27.04.2019 also stated that
the petitioner shall complete the revised evacuation
scheme before the commencement of this year (2019)
monsoon, so that other generators on the same line are not
affected and that if the petitioner fails to complete the
revised evacuation scheme within that period, KPTCL
would not be responsible towards the undue consequences
that may arise.
17. A perusal of the aforesaid PIA dated
27.04.2019, would clearly indicate that no vested / accrued
right for obtaining a provisional interconnection approval
had been created or granted in favour of the petitioner by
the KPTCL; the PIA was in the nature of an interim
arrangement so as to enable the petitioner to complete the
evacuation scheme work within the extended period that
was to expire on 21.12.2019; the PIA was not traceable to
any statutory provisions of law, rule or regulation and the
PIA was in consonance with the evacuation scheme.
18. It is also relevant to state that the PIA only
granted a LILO in favour of the petitioner to the already
existing LILO of PHEPL and no separate / independent /
exclusive LILO had been granted in favour of the petitioner;
further, the PIA took into account the difficulties / protests /
objections of respondents 2 to 4 if approval was granted in
favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the PIA was
granted only for a period of three months from 27.04.2019
or till commencement of monsoon period, whichever was
earlier; significantly, the prejudice and hardship as
contended by the respondents 2 to 4 were also considered
by the KPTCL and specific conditions were imposed upon
the petitioner that if any objections / legal issues /
complications arose from anybody (including respondents 2
to 4), the PIA would stand withdrawn and that if the
petitioner did not complete the evacuation scheme within
the stipulated period, KPTCL would not be responsible for
the consequences that would arise on non-completion of
the evacuation scheme by the petitioner. Under these
circumstances, it is clear that since no legal / vested right
had accrued or had been granted in favour of the petitioner
under the PIA, the petitioner was not entitled to complain or
make a grievance against any of the conditions imposed in
the PIA, particularly when the petitioner had not acquired
any vested / accrued right in the already existing LILOs of
respondents 2 to 4.
19. The undisputed material on record also
discloses that the petitioner did not complete the revised
evacuation scheme work even subsequent to 27.04.2019
within the stipulated period; meanwhile, respondents 2 to 4
approached this Court in W.P.No.21126/2019 challenging
the aforesaid PIA dated 27.04.2019 on the ground that the
said PIA dated 27.04.2019 which permits the petitioner to
take a LILO in the already existing LILO of PHEPL was
working great hardship to the respondents 2 to 4; by order
dated 08.05.2019, this Court disposed of
W.P.No.21126/2019 by directing the parties herein to
approach the KERC; pursuant thereto, the KERC disposed
of O.P.No.28/2019 vide order dated 30.05.2019 by
modifying the PIA dated 27.04.2019 to only 4 MW instead
of 24 MW and by directing the KPTCL to re-examine the
terms and conditions to be imposed in the PIA dated
27.04.2019.
20. The aforesaid order dated 30.05.2019, having
been challenged by the respondents 2 to 4 before this
Court in W.P.No.23179/2019, this Court vide order dated
06.06.2019 rejected the said petitions confirming the
directions of the KERC and by making certain clarifications;
pursuant thereto, the KPTCL issued a revised PIA dated
07.06.2019 by reiterating the conditions prescribed in the
PIA dated 27.04.2019 and by imposing certain additional
conditions for exporting 4 MW; needless to state that even
under this revised PIA, petitioner was entitled to take a
LILO only in the existing LILO of PHEPL (respondent No.2);
the revised PIA dated 07.06.2019 was valid for a period up
to 26.07.2019 or completion of line strengthening work by
the petitioner, whichever was earlier.
21. The material on record also reveals that the
petitioner could not complete the work even by 26.07.2019
in terms of the revised PIA and at the requests of the
petitioner, the KPTCL granted further extensions on
11.07.2019 up to 26.07.2019, 13.08.2019 up to 31.12.2019
and on 06.11.2019 up to 30.06.2020; as stated supra, the
said extensions were granted at the request of the
petitioner, who did not complete the evacuation scheme
work despite repeated extensions. It is significant to note
that though the respondents 2 to 4 did not challenge the
revised PIA dated 07.06.2019, they addressed several
letters during the period August 2019 up to October 2020 to
the KPTCL opposing, protesting and objecting to extension
of time being granted in favour of the petitioner.
22. On 16.04.2020, petitioner sought for extension
of time up to June 2021 by citing its inability to complete the
work on or before 30.06.2020 on account of the Covid-19
pandemic; accordingly, vide communication dated
02.07.2020, the time period extension was granted in
favour of the petitioner up to 30.06.2021 by making it clear
to the petitioner and subject to the condition that the
petitioner shall complete the entire revised evacuation
scheme within the said period without seeking any further
extension; in terms of the said extension dated 02.07.2020,
an Undertaking was also furnished by the petitioner that it
would not seek any further extension beyond 30.06.2021.
23. The material on record also discloses that the
petitioner did not complete the evacuation scheme work
within the stipulated period expiring on 30.06.2021; instead,
petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.05.2021 to
the KPTCL requesting further extension of time up to
30.06.2022; interestingly, in the said representation,
petitioner also sought for modification of the evacuation
scheme and requested for grant of LILO to both Line -1 and
Line - 2 by contending that the said arrangement will not
affect the respondents 2 to 4. However, subsequently,
petitioner submitted one more representation dated
29.05.2021 and intimated the KPTCL that M/s.IPCL's 2nd
Line has the capacity of 31 MW out of which, IPCL was
pumping only 18 MW and since the balance 13 MW is
available, the IPCL had come forward to help the petitioner
and given consent for the arrangement by which the
petitioner was requesting LILO of 2nd 66 KV circuit of IPCL
- Sakaleshpura line; the said representation dated
29.05.2021 clearly indicates that the petitioner had not
asked for retention / continuation of the LILO to the LILO of
PHEPL which had been granted in favour of the petitioner
earlier under the PIAs referred to supra; instead, the
petitioner had specifically stated that since IPCL was ready
and willing to help and cooperate with the petitioner,
petitioner was requesting permission to LILO 2nd 66 KV
circuit of IPCL - Sakaleshpura line.
24. On 02.06.2021, respondents 2 to 4 herein
preferred W.P.No.9821/2021 for a direction to the KPTCL
not to issue or extend any revised PIA to the petitioner
herein without hearing the respondents 2 to 4 and other
affected power producers; by final order dated 07.06.2021,
this Court disposed of the said petition directing the KPTCL
to consider the representations / grievances of the
petitioner as well as respondents 2 to 4 herein and pass
appropriate orders on or before 30.06.2021. Pursuant
thereto, petitioner submitted one more representation dated
11.06.2021; in this representation also, intimated the
KPTCL that M/s. IPCL's 2nd Line has the capacity of 31
MW out of which, IPCL was pumping only 18 MW and
since the balance 13 MW is available, the IPCL had come
forward to help the petitioner and given consent for the
arrangement by which the petitioner was requesting LILO
of 2nd 66 KV circuit of IPCL - Sakaleshpura line and that
the petitioner had not asked for retention / continuation of
the LILO to the LILO of PHEPL which had been granted in
favour of the petitioner earlier under the PIAs referred to
supra and that since IPCL was ready and willing to help
and cooperate with the petitioner, petitioner was requesting
permission to LILO 2nd 66 KV circuit of IPCL -
Sakaleshpura line; respondents 2 to 4 also submitted their
respective representations.
25. After considering the representations of the
petitioner and respondents 2 to 4, the KPTCL proceeded to
pass the revised PIA dated 30.06.2021 extending time up
to 30.06.2022 and by imposing several conditions upon the
petitioner, amongst which, the impugned condition No.1
directing the petitioner to disconnect the existing LILO
connectivity to the LILO of PHEPL (respondent No.2) has
been assailed in the present petition,.
26. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is
necessary to extract the various terms and conditions of the
PIA dated 30.06.2021 including the impugned condition
No.1, which reads as under:
1. You shall disconnect your existing LILO
connectivity i.e., from your MHS plant to the
LILO line of M/s PHEPL.
2. You are permitted to LILO the 1st Circuit of 66kv
IPCL-Sakaleshpura line from your MHS plant
which is in line with the re-revised evacuation
scheme cited in ref (8).
3. The time period extension for the revised
provisional interconnection approval for the
period from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022 is subject
to connectivity of your MHS plant to the 1st
Circuit of 66kv IPCL Sakaleshpura line and
delinking of your existing connectivity from LILO
lien of M/s PHEPL.
4. The generation from your MHS plant is limited to
04MW as per KERC orders in OP no.28/2019
dated: 30.05.2019 and at any point of time, the
generation from your MHS plant shall not exceed
4 MW till approval of regular interconnection is
granted. Your shall retain the SPS installed at
your MHS plant end to limit overall export from
your plant to 04MW.
5. Within the extended period for revised
provisional interconnection approval you shall
complete all the balance work in accordance with
re-revised evacuation scheme cited in ref(8 & 9)
failing which KPTCL is at the liberty to
disconnect the existing arrangement. Your shall
abide by your affirmation furnished in the
Affidavit dated: 29.06.2021.
CEE/TZ/Hassan shall ensure that, till the
completion of the entire re-revised evacuation
scheme work, the generation of M/s Maruthi
Power Gen (India) Pvt Ltd shall not exceed 4MW
and the loading of the existing 66kV DC line
between IPCL to Sakaleshpura substation shall
be maintained within the safe loading limits.
Further, CEE/TZ/Hassan shall note that, before
interconnecting the MHS plant to the 1st Circuit
of 66kV IPCL-Sakaleshpura line, the CEIG
approval for having disconnected the plant from
the LILO line of M/s PHEPL and having
connected to the 1st Circuit of 66kV IPCL-
Sakaleshpura line shall be obtained.
You shall note that you shall furnish CEIG
approval for having disconnected your plant from
the LILO line of M/s PHEPL and having
connected to the 1st Circuit of 66kV IPCL-
Sakaleshpura line to CEE/TZ/Hassan before
interconnecting your plant with KPTCL grid. If
you fail to do so, your will not be allowed to
interconnect with KPTCL grid.
27. A perusal of the PIA dated 30.06.2021 will
indicate that the KPTCL has taken into account the entire
material on record including the past conduct of the
petitioner, inability and omission on the part of the petitioner
to complete the revised evacuation scheme within the
stipulated period, repeated extensions sought for and
granted in favour of the petitioner to complete the work, the
various terms and conditions of the evacuation scheme
dated 22.06.2017 and the earlier PIAs granted in favour of
the petitioner, the several undertakings submitted by the
petitioner that it would complete the evacuation scheme
work within the stipulated period, the repeated objections
and protests of respondents 2 to 4 including the respondent
No.2 - PHEPL from whose LILO, the petitioner had
obtained a LILO as per the 1st PIA dated 27.04.2019, the
prejudice, loss and hardship that was being caused to
respondents 2 to 4 on account of the delay and latches of
the petitioner in completing the evacuation scheme work,
the earlier rounds of litigation between the petitioner and
respondents 2 to 4 in which they had continuously
ventilated their grievances in granting / extending PIA in
favour of the petitioner, the specific assertion on the part of
the petitioner that since IPCL had addressed a
communication dated 12.04.2021 to the KPTCL, wherein it
was stated that IPCL did not have any objection for the
petitioner to connect to its 2nd 66 KV circuit of IPCL -
Sakaleshpura line by way of LILO as an alternative to the
existing LILO of PHEPL and the submission of IPCL that
they will abide by a balanced decision to be taken by the
KPTCL and also the request made by the petitioner in its
representations dated 29.05.2021 and 14.06.2021
requesting for permission for grant of LILO to 2nd 66 KV
circuit of IPCL - Sakaleshpura line and other attendant
circumstances for the purpose of coming to the conclusion
that all necessary terms and conditions for the purpose of
protecting the interest of the petitioner, IPCL as well as the
respondents 2 to 4 were required to be imposed while
issuing the revised PIA in favour of the petitioner. Under
these circumstances, in the backdrop of the aforesaid
sequence of events and earlier rounds of litigation between
the parties, it cannot be said that impugned condition No.1
is illegal, invalid, unfair, irrational or unreasonable
warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.
28. A perusal of the aforesaid various terms and
conditions incorporated in the POA dated 30.06.2021 will
also indicate that the same are interlinked and intimately
connected to each other and are not separable from one
another; neither the impugned condition No.1 nor the other
conditions are independent or stand alone conditions for
the purpose of giving effect to and making the interim
arrangement under the PIA workable; to put it differently,
having regard to the undisputed fact that the subject matter
of the PIA dated 30.06.2021 was with regard to grant of
extension of provisional interconnection approval in favour
of the petitioner up to 30.06.2022, in the light of the
representations of the parties and in the light / backdrop of
the earlier events / litigations between the parties, in the
facts of the case on hand, the question of deletion of only
condition No.1 while retaining the other conditions does not
arise, since deletion of condition No.1 will not only have an
impact and bearing on the remaining conditions but will
also render the same unworkable and on this ground also,
the impugned condition No.1 does not warrant interference
by this Court in the present petition.
29. As stated supra, neither the original PIA dated
27.04.2019 nor in the extension orders including the PIA
dated 30.06.2021 were not traceable to any statutory
provisions, rule or regulation and as such, no legal / vested
/ statutory right had accrued in favour of the petitioner
under the same, so as to entitle him to challenge the
conditions imposed in the revised PIA dated 30.06.2021
where under he had asked for extension of time for
completion of the evacuation scheme work; in other words,
in the absence of any vested / legal / statutory right that
had accrued in favour of the petitioner under the temporary
provisional interconnection approval dated 27.04.2019
which had been extended at the instance of the petitioner,
subsequently on account of the evacuation scheme work
not having been completed by him within the stipulated
period, it is clearly impermissible for the petitioner to
demand that only the terms and conditions which are
convenient and suitable to him can be imposed and all
other terms and conditions which are inconvenient to him
ought to be struck down by this Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; in
this regard, it is well settled that merely because condition
No.1 may cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the said
circumstance cannot be made the basis to come to the
conclusion that condition No.1 was liable to be quashed
and as such, the contention of the petitioner in this regard
cannot be accepted.
30. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that
the impugned condition No.1 is contrary to the other
conditions and cannot be imposed is concerned, a perusal
of the PIA dated 30.06.2021 which contains the impugned
condition No.1 as well as other conditions clearly indicates
that the KPTCL has taken into account and considered the
previous events and all relevant facts and circumstances
and has issued the said PIA by imposing several terms and
conditions including condition No.1 which cannot be said to
be contrary to the other conditions; needless to say that it is
not open for this Court to dissect the terms and conditions
of the PIA issued by the KPTCL which is clearly
impermissible in law and consequently, even this
contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
31. It is well settled that the scope of interference
by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in
relation to technical issues/policy decisions or matters is
extremely limited and restricted; in the case of Jal Mahal
Resorts Private Limited vs K.P.SHarma and others -
(2014)8 SCC 804, the Apex Court held as under:
"137. From this, it is clear that although the courts
are expected very often to enter into the technical
and administrative aspects of the matter, it has its
own limitations and in consonance with the theory
and principle of separation of powers, reliance at
least to some extent to the decisions of the State
authorities, specially if it is based on the opinion of
the experts reflected from the project report
prepared by the technocrats, accepted by the entire
hierarchy of the State administration, acknowledged,
accepted and approved by one Government after
the other, will have to be given due credence and
weightage.....
140. At this juncture, we take note of two overriding
considerations which combined, narrow the scope of
review. The first is that of deference to the views of
administrative experts and the other we take
assistance from the words of Chief Justice Neely
who expressed as follows:
"I have very few illusions about my own
limitations as a judge and from those
limitations I generalise to the inherent
limitations of all appellate courts reviewing
rare cases."
The learned Chief Justice further observed as
follows:
"I am not an accountant, electrical engineer,
financier, banker, stock broker, or systems
management analyst. It is the height of folly
to expect judges intelligently to review a 5000
page record addressing the intricacies of
public utility operation.
It is not the function of a judge to act as a
super board, or with the zeal of a pedantic
schoolmaster substituting its judgment for
that of the administrator. The result is a
theory of review that limits the extent to which
the discretion of the expert may be
scrutinised by the non-expert judge. It was
suggested that the alternative for the court is
to desist itself from interference on technical
matters, where all the advantages of
expertise lie with the agencies. If the court
were to review fully the decision of an expert
body such as State Board of Medical
Examiners, 'it would find itself wandering
amid the maze of therapeutics or boggling at
the mysteries of the pharmacopoeia'."
32. Similarly, in N.D.Jayal and others vs. Union
of India and others - (2004) 9 SCC 362, it was held as
under:-
"20. This Court cannot sit in judgment over the
cutting edge of scientific analysis relating to the
safety of any project. Experts in science may
themselves differ in their opinions while taking
decisions on matters related to safety and allied
aspects. The opposing viewpoints of the experts will
also have to be given due consideration after full
application of mind. When the Government or the
authorities concerned after due consideration of all
viewpoints and full application of mind took a
decision, then it is not appropriate for the court to
interfere. Such matters must be left to the mature
wisdom of the Government or the implementing
agency. It is their forte. In such cases, if the situation
demands, the courts should take only a detached
decision based on the pattern of the well-settled
principles of administrative law. If any such decision
is based on irrelevant consideration or non-
consideration of material or is thoroughly arbitrary,
then the court will get in the way. Here the only point
to consider is whether the decision-making agency
took a well-informed decision or not. If the answer is
"yes", then there is no need to interfere. The
consideration in such cases is in the process of
decision and not in its merits."
33. Subsequently, in the case of Centre for
Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India and others -
(2016) 6 SCC 408, it was held as under:
" 21. In this context, reliance is sought to be
placed on the decision of this Court in A.P.
Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu
[(1999) 2 SCC 718] . In that decision, this
Court viewed that in scientific matters of
complex nature resulting in uncertainty,
reference has to be made to a specialised
technical/expert body and not merely decide
the matter on well-known principles of
administrative law of court not re-examining the
matter if all relevant considerations have been
taken note of. "
34. In the case of Peerless General Finance and
Investment Company and others vs. Reserve Bank of
India - AIR 1992 SC 1033, in relation to the scope of
interference with policy matters/decisions, it was held:
" It is not the concern of this Court to find out as to
whether actuarial method of accounting or any other
method would be feasible or possible to adopt by
the companies while carrying out the conditions
contained in paragraphs (6) and (12) of the
directions of 1987. The companies are free to adopt
any mode of accounting permissible under the law
but it is certain that they will have to follow the entire
terms and conditions contained in the impugned
directions of 1987 including those contained in
paragraphs (6) and (12). It is not the function of the
Court to amend and lay down some other directions
and the High Court was totally wrong in doing so.
The function of the Court is not to advise in matters
relating to financial and economic policies for which
bodies like Reserve Bank are fully competent. The
Court can only strike down some or entire directions
issued by the Reserve Bank in case the Court is
satisfied that the directions were wholly
unreasonable or violative of any provisions of the
Constitution or any statute. It would be hazardous
and risky for the courts to tread an unknown path
and should leave such task to the expert bodies.
This Court has repeatedly said that matters of
economic policy ought to be left to the government.
While dealing with the validity of an order passed on
September 30, 1977 fixing a retail price of mustard
oil not exceeding Rs 10 per kilogram in exercise of
powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, a bench of Seven Judges of this
Court in Prag Ice & Oil Mills v. Union of India and
Nav Bharat Oil Mills v. Union of India [(1978) 3 SCC
459 : AIR 1978 SC 1296 : 1978 Cri LJ 1281]
observed as under: (SCC p. 478, para 24)
"We have listened to long arguments directed at
showing us that producers and sellers of oil in
various parts of the country will suffer so that they
would give up producing or dealing in mustard oil. It
was urged that this would, quite naturally, have its
repercussions on consumers for whom mustard oil
will become even more scarce than ever ultimately.
We do not think that it is the function of this Court or
of any court to sit in judgment over such matters of
economic policy as must necessarily be left to the
government of the day to decide. Many of them, as
a measure of price fixation must necessarily be, are
matters of prediction of ultimate results on which
even experts can seriously err and doubtlessly
differ. Courts can certainly not be expected to
decide them without even the aid of experts."
35. In the case of Bharat Jhunjhunwala vs
Union of India - 2019(1) ADJ 837, it was held as under:
"47. The ambit of judicial review of the decision
making process of the Government again came up
before the Supreme Court in a matter pertaining to
the safety and environmental aspects of the Tehri
Dam, in N.D. Jayal & Anr. Vs. Union of India &
Ors.11 wherein the decision of the Government on
a particular safety aspect of the dam, which was
based upon a report submitted by group of experts,
was sought to be questioned, and the Apex Court
by its majority judgment held that the Court cannot
sit in judgment over the cutting edge of scientific
analysis and where the Government or the
authorities concerned after due consideration of all
view points and full application of mind had taken a
decision it would not be appropriate for the Court to
interfere and such matters must be left to the
wisdom of the Government or the implementing
agency, and only, if such decision is based on
irrelevant consideration or non-consideration of
material or is thoroughly arbitrary, then the Court
would get in the way........
22. Minimal interference is called for by the courts,
in exercise of judicial review of a Government
policy when the said policy is the outcome of
deliberations of the technical experts in the fields
inasmuch as courts are not well-equipped to
fathom into such domain which is left to the
discretion of the execution. It was beautifully
explained by the Court in Narmada Bachao
Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664 and
reiterated in Federation of Railway Officers Assn. v.
Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289 in the following
words:
"12. In examining a question of this nature
where a policy is evolved by the Government
judicial review thereof is limited. When policy
according to which or the purpose for which
discretion is to be exercised is clearly
expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to
be an unrestricted discretion. On matters
affecting policy and requiring technical
expertise the court would leave the matter for
decision of those who are qualified to
address the issues. Unless the policy or
action is inconsistent with the Constitution
and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse
of power, the court will not interfere with such
matters."
36. In the case of Reliance Infrastructure
Limited vs State of Maharashrta and others reported in
AIR 2019 SC 567, it is held as under:
30. The National Tariff Policy has multi-faceted
objectives. Significant among them is the need to
ensure to consumers the availability of electricity at
reasonable and competitive rates. The policy also
seeks to ensure the financial viability of the sector
and underlines the need to attract investments. A
financially sustainable electricity sector is an
important facet of the overall regulatory framework.
The objectives of the policy emphasis the need to
promote transparency, consistency and
predictability in regulatory approaches across
jurisdictions. The policy emphasis the need to
minimise perceptions of regulatory risk. Finally, the
policy recognises the need to promote competition,
efficiency in operations and improvements in the
quality of supply. In designing and formulating the
regulatory framework for tariffs, the delegate of the
legislature has to bring about a balance between the
competing goals which the Tariff Policy
incorporates.
37. As can be seen from the aforesaid decisions,
the scope of judicial review in technical issues/policy
decisions or matters has limited scope of interference and
this Court cannot sit in judgment over technical related
issues/policy decisions or matters as held by the Apex
Court in the aforesaid decisions. In the instant case, the
KPTCL has considered the entire material on record
including the technical / non-technical aspects involved in
the matter and has issued the PIA dated 30.06.2021 and
consequently, the judicial review of the legality or validity of
the terms and conditions of the PIA, in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the instant case are incapable of
being interfered with by this Court in the present petition.
38. Insofar as the hardship pleaded by the
petitioner by imposition of the impugned condition No.1 is
concerned, it is necessary to state that both petitioner on
one hand and respondents 2 to 4 on the other have
pleaded their respective hardships; comparative hardship
of both the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 based on their
respective contentions which give rise to disputed and
complicated questions of fact is also beyond the scope of
judicial review warranting interference in the present
petition, especially when it is the specific contention of the
petitioner that condition No.1 is causing hardship to the
petitioner, it is contended by the respondents 2 to 4 that if
condition No.1 is set aside, they would be put to great
hardship and prejudice. Under these circumstances, the
question of examining condition No.1 in the light of
comparative hardship that would be caused to the parties
would also not arise for consideration in the present
petition.
39. To reiterate, the various contentions/claims put
forth by the petitioner in order to challenge the impugned
condition No.1 in the PIA dated 30.06.2021 cannot be
accepted for the following reasons:
a) The PIA dated 27.04.2019 granted in favour of the
petitioner, subsequent extensions granted up to
30.06.2021 as well as the PIA dated 30.06.2021
granting extension up to 30.06.2022 are not traceable to
any statutory provision/rule/regulation, so as to enable
the petitioner to demand/claim any
vested/accrued/statutory right of approval or extension
or challenge the terms and conditions incorporated in
the PIAs/extension orders which are in the nature of
interim arrangements for the purpose of enabling the
petitioner to complete the evacuation scheme work and
consequently, it is not open for the petitioner to
challenge the impugned condition No.1 in the PIA dated
30.06.2021.
b) A perusal of the material on record obtaining in the
instant case clearly establishes that the terms and
conditions of the PIA dated 30.06.2021 including the
impugned condition No.1 are in the realm of technical
issues and matters relating to the policy of the KPTCL
which are not capable of judicial review by this Court in
the present petition as held by the Apex Court in the
aforesaid decisions.
c) The comparitive hardship pleaded by both sides as
regards condition No.1 being inserted/deleted also gives
rise to several contentious issues and complicated and
disputed questions of fact which are also not capable of
adjudication by this Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
in the facts of the instant case.
d) The issues that arise for consideration in this petition in
relation to the evacuation scheme, provisional
interconnection approval, extensions of the same sought
for by petitioner and protests/objections by respondents
2 to 4, rival contentions in this regard etc., are in the
nature of contractual disputes and viewed from this
angle also, in the facts of the case on hand, the
impugned condition No.1 does not warrant interference
by this Court.
e) The material on record including the past conduct of the
petitioner, inability and omission on the part of the
petitioner to complete the revised evacuation scheme
within the stipulated period, repeated extensions sought
for and granted in favour of the petitioner to complete
the work, the various terms and conditions of the
evacuation scheme dated 22.06.2017 and the earlier
PIAs granted in favour of the petitioner, the several
undertakings submitted by the petitioner that it would
complete the evacuation scheme work within the
stipulated period, all of which are a clear pointer to the
fact that despite sufficient time having been granted in
favour of the petitioner, the evacuation scheme work
has not been completed by the petitioner and
consequently, petitioner is not entitled to any relief on
this ground also.
f) The material on record also indicates that the repeated
objections and protests of respondents 2 to 4 including
the respondent No.2 - PHEPL from whose LILO, the
petitioner had obtained a LILO as per the 1st PIA dated
27.04.2019, the prejudice, loss and hardship that was
being caused to respondents 2 to 4 on account of the
delay and latches of the petitioner in completing the
evacuation scheme work, the earlier rounds of litigation
between the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 in which
they had continuously ventilated their grievances in
granting / extending PIA in favour of the petitioner also
indicate that the KPTCL was fully justified in imposing
several terms and conditions in the PIA dated
30.06.2021 by balancing the rival interests, claims and
contentions of both the petitioner as well as respondent
Nos.2 to 4 and viewed from this angle also, the
challenge to condition No.1 on the ground that it is
causing inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner
alone cannot be countenanced and the same is liable to
be rejected.
g) The material on record indicates that it was the specific
assertion on the part of the petitioner that since IPCL
had addressed a communication dated 12.04.2021 to
the KPTCL, wherein it was stated that IPCL did not have
any objection for the petitioner to connect to its 2nd 66
KV circuit of IPCL - Sakaleshpura line by way of LILO
as an alternative to the existing LILO of PHEPL and the
submission of IPCL that they will abide by a balanced
decision to be taken by the KPTCL and also the request
made by the petitioner in its representations dated
29.05.2021 and 14.06.2021 requesting for permission
for grant of LILO to 2nd 66 KV circuit of IPCL -
Sakaleshpura line; in this context, it is relevant to state
that it is an undisputed fact that in the original PIA dated
27.04.2019, the petitioner had been granted a LILO to
the existing LILO of PHEPL (respondent No.2) and the
same LILO in favour of the petitioner was subsequently
extended up to 30.06.2021; though in its representation
dated 05.05.2021, petitioner asked for an additional
LILO to 2nd 66 KV circuit of IPCL - Sakaleshpura line in
addition to the existing LILO to the LILO of PHEPL as
per the previous PIAs, in the subsequent representation
dated 29.05.2021 and 14.06.2021, petitioner did not
insist on continuation of the existing LILO of the PHEPL
and instead, the petitioner merely sought for a LILO to
2nd 66 KV circuit of IPCL - Sakaleshpura line in view of
the NOC given by IPCL; this aspect is clarified by the
KPTCL in its Statement of Objections as well as the
other material on record. Under these circumstances, in
the backdrop of the events that have transpired prior to
30.06.2021 and the specific request made by the
petitioner that it intends to LILO to 2nd 66 KV circuit of
IPCL - Sakaleshpura line of IPCL, the KPTCL was fully
justified in imposing suitable terms and conditions in the
PIA dated 30.06.2021 including condition No.1 directing
disconnection of the existing LILO of the petitioner to the
LILO of PHEPL for the purpose of obtaining LILO and
extension of time for provisional interconnection
approval up to 30.06.2022 by taking a LILO to 2nd 66 KV
circuit of IPCL - Sakaleshpura line and as such, the
challenge to condition No.1 to the PIA dated 30.06.2021
must fail on this ground also.
h) The material on record also reveals that the claim of the
petitioner that taking a LILO to 2nd 66 KV circuit of IPCL
- Sakaleshpura line would consume a lot of time,
thereby resulting in great hardship and prejudice to the
petitioner if it is asked to disconnect the existing LILO to
the LILO of PHEPL also stands falsified by the conduct
of the petitioner in not taking necessary steps from July,
2021 onwards till date despite obtaining an interim order
dated 06.07.2021 in the present petition, which
continued to subsist and remain in force till disposal of
the petition; in other words despite specifically stating
that disconnection of the existing LILO to the LILO of
PHEPL would result in hardship, petitioner did not take
suitable steps from July, 2021 onwards to shift to the
LILO granted in 2nd 66 KV circuit of IPCL -
Sakaleshpura line and consequently, the said conduct of
the petitioner also disentitles him from any relief in the
present petition.
i) The material on record also discloses that the KPTCL
was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that all
necessary terms and conditions for the purpose of
protecting the interest of the petitioner, IPCL as well as
the respondents 2 to 4 were required to be imposed
while issuing the revised PIA in favour of the petitioner.
Under these circumstances, in the backdrop of the
aforesaid sequence of events and earlier rounds of
litigation between the parties, it cannot be said that
impugned condition No.1 is illegal, invalid, unfair,
irrational or unreasonable warranting interference by this
Court in the present petition.
j) The PIA dated 30.06.2021 issued by the KPTCL will
indicate that it has taken into account all relevant
considerations and factors for the purpose of granting
extension of the interconnection approval in favour of
the petitioner; while considering the representations put
forth by the petitioner on one hand and respondents 2 to
4 on the other, the KPTCL had come to the unequivocal,
clear, definite and certain conclusion that it was not
possible to grant extension of the PIA in favour of the
petitioner in the LILO to the LILO of PHEPL; however, in
view of the specific no objection / consent given by IPCL
that it was ready and willing for the petitioner to permit
LILO of 1st circuit of 66 KV IPCL - Sakaleshpura Line,
KPTCL agreed to grant the said approval for LILO
subject to the condition that the petitioner disconnects
the existing LILO to the LILO of PHEPL; a careful
reading of the entire PIA dated 30.06.2021 will clearly
indicate that the terms and conditions contained therein
are supplementary and complementary to each other
and the same has taken into account the grievances of
all concerned parties including the petitioner and
consequently, on this ground also, the challenge to
condition No.1 must fail.
40. In the result, I do not find any merit in the
present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the interim order that was in force stands
dissolved.
SD/-
JUDGE
Srl.
